Can you *know* there is no God?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

Ad hominem all the way down?

What's ad hominem about the awe of discovering something you didn't create?

Greg

You're pretending an argument by switching context from my looking back to your looking forward. First you have to show you understand what I was talking about, albeit with some humor. If we were talking about a scientific matter you'd be engaging in what Richard Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science." I'm not sure, but this may be a criticism of what Jonathan kept saying about you--that your stock in trade is "affirming the consequent." Regardless, your postings are valuable not for only what may be refined out of them, but for any fallacious reasoning, as are all valuable posts by us sundry posters. So, for me, it's not so much affirming the consequent as affirming usefulness. This, for instance, is a wonderful opportunity to come with a wonderful link to a great mind. (The Wikipedia article may be a more concise read giving the same information. I don't know. I didn't go there.)

https://science.madison.k12.wi.us/files/science/Feynman_Cargo_Cult_Science_reading.pdf

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:

First you have to show you understand what I was talking about, albeit with some humor.

Ok, can you explain what you meant?

And just to clarify... a simple direct question:

Do you agree or disagree that Einstein did not create anything

and only discovered the logical order of a pre-existing physical law?

A. Agree.

B. Disagree.

Please type just the one simple letter that applies to your view FIRST...

...BEFORE the smokescreen.

Greg

[Selene]

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:

When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

This is a site that is devoted to just Spinoza and Einstein and I was led to it from two comments on one of the prior links...

Eisenstein came to this conclusion after discussion in regard the observer effect in quantum physics. There is, in fact, a spirit, but it is not outside of men, it is within men. It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of “I am”. It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness. Lending credence to the idea that most religious works may not have been so “naive” in and of themselves, but rather completely misinterpreted simply by thinking GOD is outside yourself.

And the above one which is in harmony with PDS' comment on oneness...

@Hanoch: My commentary on Einstein’s view has nothing to do with my own biases, be they what they are. In matters of “faith,” Einstein hewed closely to the views of Baruch Spinoza, who defined God as Nature or the laws of nature, and whom

Einstein read as a determinist with no belief in supernatural beings. That’s the allusion he’s making in his letter. This site explains his views more thoroughly: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

Adam: can you send a link to the middle quote in red? I couldn't find it. Interesting. So Einstein was a mystic too, eh?

This started with my Open Culture daily e-mail:

Josh Jones is is a doctoral candidate in English at Fordham University and a co-founder and former managing editor of Guernica / A Magazine of Arts and Politics, and the author of the article Do Scientists Pray.

http://www.openculture.com/2012/08/do_scientists_pray_einstein_responds.html

In the comment section underneath the article was:

Josh Jones says:

August 31, 2012 at 9:51 am

@Hanoch: My commentary on Einstein’s view has nothing to do with my own biases, be they what they are. In matters of “faith,” Einstein hewed closely to the views of Baruch Spinoza, who defined God as Nature or the laws of nature, and whom

Einstein read as a determinist with no belief in supernatural beings. That’s the allusion he’s making in his letter. This site explains his views more thoroughly: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

Reply

Nomindknowtruth says:

March 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Eisenstein came to this conclusion after discussion in regard the observer effect in quantum physics. There is, in fact, a spirit, but it is not outside of men, it is within men. It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of “I am”. It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness. Lending credence to the idea that most religious works may not have been so “naive” in and of themselves, but rather completely misinterpreted simply by thinking GOD is outside yourself.

Josh provided a link in his article which led to this:

The Riverside Church

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

----------------------

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/05/dear-einstein-do-scientists-pray.html

Phew...

Good thing I learned to track when I was a kid!

Additionally, I find your position a very comfortable one for me also, in that it incorporates a "oneness" that does work within each individual's "mind/soul."

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

First you have to show you understand what I was talking about, albeit with some humor.

Ok, can you explain what you meant?

And just to clarify... a simple direct question:

Do you agree or disagree that Einstein did not create anything

and only discovered the logical order of a pre-existing physical law?

A. Agree.

B. Disagree.

Please type just the one simple letter that applies to your view FIRST...

...BEFORE the smokescreen.

Greg

I could and I did. You chose to either not understand it or ignore it.

As to A or B I will give you a simple answer, but first, my context which is my idea of "create" is not the same as yours for I don't see these as one idea excluding the other. So, yes, I choose "A" but I do not mix up "law" with "phenomenon." The latter is what I call what you call "law." The reason is law is the broader concept. I prefer to reserve it for such usage, most commonly for man-made jurisprudence or as an analogy.

Einstein created his discovery. I hate to come with such a twisted formulation, but you in effect asked for it so I'm serving it up. You should get clear in your mind that usually when I argue with you it's semantical. Semantics are much more important to you than me because you have created your personal philosophical edifice held together in its weak places by consistent semantical reasoning, all beyond any possibility of even rhetorical falsification.

--Brant

[PDS]

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:

When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

This is a site that is devoted to just Spinoza and Einstein and I was led to it from two comments on one of the prior links...

Eisenstein came to this conclusion after discussion in regard the observer effect in quantum physics. There is, in fact, a spirit, but it is not outside of men, it is within men. It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of “I am”. It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness. Lending credence to the idea that most religious works may not have been so “naive” in and of themselves, but rather completely misinterpreted simply by thinking GOD is outside yourself.

And the above one which is in harmony with PDS' comment on oneness...

@Hanoch: My commentary on Einstein’s view has nothing to do with my own biases, be they what they are. In matters of “faith,” Einstein hewed closely to the views of Baruch Spinoza, who defined God as Nature or the laws of nature, and whom

Einstein read as a determinist with no belief in supernatural beings. That’s the allusion he’s making in his letter. This site explains his views more thoroughly: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

Adam: can you send a link to the middle quote in red? I couldn't find it. Interesting. So Einstein was a mystic too, eh?

"It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of "I am"".

That's a mystic?

In that case, so was Rand.

"Man is a being of self-made soul".

Tony: read the last sentence in the paragraph, after the red highlight. That comment about "God within" is a classical mystical insight.

Aldous Huxley called this the Perennial Philosophy.

[PDS]

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:

When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.

This is a site that is devoted to just Spinoza and Einstein and I was led to it from two comments on one of the prior links...

Eisenstein came to this conclusion after discussion in regard the observer effect in quantum physics. There is, in fact, a spirit, but it is not outside of men, it is within men. It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of “I am”. It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness. Lending credence to the idea that most religious works may not have been so “naive” in and of themselves, but rather completely misinterpreted simply by thinking GOD is outside yourself.

And the above one which is in harmony with PDS' comment on oneness...

@Hanoch: My commentary on Einstein’s view has nothing to do with my own biases, be they what they are. In matters of “faith,” Einstein hewed closely to the views of Baruch Spinoza, who defined God as Nature or the laws of nature, and whom

Einstein read as a determinist with no belief in supernatural beings. That’s the allusion he’s making in his letter. This site explains his views more thoroughly: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

Adam: can you send a link to the middle quote in red? I couldn't find it. Interesting. So Einstein was a mystic too, eh?

This started with my Open Culture daily e-mail:

Josh Jones is is a doctoral candidate in English at Fordham University and a co-founder and former managing editor of Guernica / A Magazine of Arts and Politics, and the author of the article Do Scientists Pray.

http://www.openculture.com/2012/08/do_scientists_pray_einstein_responds.html

In the comment section underneath the article was:

Josh Jones says:

August 31, 2012 at 9:51 am

@Hanoch: My commentary on Einstein’s view has nothing to do with my own biases, be they what they are. In matters of “faith,” Einstein hewed closely to the views of Baruch Spinoza, who defined God as Nature or the laws of nature, and whom

Einstein read as a determinist with no belief in supernatural beings. That’s the allusion he’s making in his letter. This site explains his views more thoroughly: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

Reply

Nomindknowtruth says:

March 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Eisenstein came to this conclusion after discussion in regard the observer effect in quantum physics. There is, in fact, a spirit, but it is not outside of men, it is within men. It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of “I am”. It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness. Lending credence to the idea that most religious works may not have been so “naive” in and of themselves, but rather completely misinterpreted simply by thinking GOD is outside yourself.

Josh provided a link in his article which led to this:

The Riverside Church

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

----------------------

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/05/dear-einstein-do-scientists-pray.html

Phew...

Good thing I learned to track when I was a kid!

Additionally, I find your position a very comfortable one for me also, in that it incorporates a "oneness" that does work within each individual's "mind/soul."

A...

Thank you Adam. Twice.

[anthony]

Adam: can you send a link to the middle quote in red? I couldn't find it. Interesting. So Einstein was a mystic too, eh?

"It is the consciousness; that which separates all people, giving them each a sense of "I am"".

That's a mystic?

In that case, so was Rand.

"Man is a being of self-made soul".

Tony: read the last sentence in the paragraph, after the red highlight. That comment about "God within" is a classical mystical insight.

Aldous Huxley called this the Perennial Philosophy.

PDS,

In the absence of a God ~ "outside of men" ~ who (or what) else can qualify as "Prime Mover" except man?

Could Einstein mean "God within", metaphorically?

Who'd presume to know his mind? And who could accuse Einstein of hedging his bets.. but we'd expect consistency from him.

More importantly he refers equally to a "spirit" or "consciousness"(within men). And specifying it is "that which separates all people" can only, to be consistent, indicate separation of consciousness from nature - too.

I.e. An autonomous, independent being..

But:

"It has begun to make more logical sense to conclude that the very fundamental essence of nature (this formless thing we call energy) IS consciousness". [AE]

This one I struggle with.

He can't mean, according to his other statements, that ALL energy in the cosmos IS consciousness as such.

That's then, an 'outside-inside spirit'... therefore God, so, mystical and self-contradictory.

If it means the energy of man's brain (so, his 'inside spirit') as part of his total physical energy has ultimately the same source in Nature -as does man's physical matter- then this makes great sense. Primacy of existence.

(That's my limits of "oneness").

Very nice find, thanks, Adam.

[BaalChatzaf]

This gets us into an interesting question. How does one -prove- that non-existence of a specified object? We know how to prove a specified object exists. We find it in the real world and point to it and say "Here it is!" Or we construct it and when we are done we say "Here it is!" Showing something exists is relatively easy. And we all share the same criterion for existence. We look, we identify and if t he object identified matches the specification of the object sought we say "Here it is".

But how do we show a specified object does not exist? It comes down to either looking at everything in the world and seeing we have no match. That is practical impossibility. An empirical demonstration of none existence is rather difficult. What is more tractable is to show the existence of the specified object leads to a logical contradiction. This is how we show that the square root of two is not the ratio of integers. If one assumes there are integers m, n such that (m/n)^2 = 2 we derive a logical contradiction

The only empirical demonstration of non-existence is to restrict the portion of the real world in which we might find the specified object. For example I can say definitely there is no $100 bill in my wallet. I get my wallet out and dump all objects therein, match each of this finite set of object to the specification for a $100 bill. Nope. None of the stuff in my wallet matches. There is no $100 dollar bill in my wallet. But to say there is no specified object X in the entire world, that is a different matter entirely. The only way to do that is with a logical proof of contradiction.

Now specify what God would be if God existed. If you can show those specification must produce a contradiction then sure enough you have proved God does not exist. There is only one problem. There is no definite specification for saying that an object is God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

This gets us into an interesting question. How does one -prove- that non-existence of a specified object? We know how to prove a specified object exists. We find it in the real world and point to it and say "Here it is!" Or we construct it and when we are done we say "Here it is!" Showing something exists is relatively easy. And we all share the same criterion for existence. We look, we identify and if t he object identified matches the specification of the object sought we say "Here it is".

But how do we show a specified object does not exist? It comes down to either looking at everything in the world and seeing we have no match. That is practical impossibility. An empirical demonstration of none existence is rather difficult. What is more tractable is to show the existence of the specified object leads to a logical contradiction. This is how we show that the square root of two is not the ratio of integers. If one assumes there are integers m, n such that (m/n)^2 = 2 we derive a logical contradiction

The only empirical demonstration of non-existence is to restrict the portion of the real world in which we might fight the specified object. For example I can say definitely there is on $100 bill in my wallet. I get my wallet out and dump all objects therein, match each of this finite set of object to the specification for a $100 bill. Nope. None of the stuff in my wallet matches. There is no $100 dollar bill in my wallet. But to say there is no specified object X in the entire world, that is a different matter entirely. The only way to do that is with a logical proof of contradiction.

Now specify what God would be if God existed. If you can show those specification must produce a contradiction then sure enough you have proved God does not exist. There is only one problem. There is no definite specification for saying that an object is God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Baal: well said.

The Eastern mystics claim that their God--unlike the judgmental white-bearded old man in the sky--is satchinananda: which loosely means (1) one energy, (2)all pervasive, and (3)benignly pleased with existence. The first two attributes seem fairly well discernable by science. Is there such an energy? Is it all pervasive? Apparently so.

The third, the benevolent "pleased with existence" part, seems to be where the leap is required, absent a direct experience with that Reality.

[Selene]

The first two attributes seem fairly well discernable by science. Is there such an energy? Is it all pervasive? Apparently so.

The third, the benevolent "pleased with existence" part, seems to be where the leap is required, absent a direct experience with that Reality.

Many folks have had that "direct experience with that reality."

Some have experienced it on that beach, or, touching the human brain of a child as one operates, or, being tortured because of what they believed in, or, took that picture, hit that note, concluded an argument that frees an innocent man...the endless awe all individuals experience when they "see!"

A...

Glad to know you all

[Wolf DeVoon]

Exception.

[Selene]

Exception.

Noted counselor.

A...

[moralist]

Brant writes:

So, yes, I choose "A" but I do not mix up "law" with "phenomenon."

ALL phenomena are governed by laws.

Einstein created his discovery.

Einstein only discovered creation.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Exception.

Noted counselor.

A...

For clarification, feelings of awe are inadmissible, as are all other emotions, visions of angels, etc.

Rand: Emotions are not tools of cognition.

[Selene]

Exception.

Noted counselor.

A...

For clarification, feelings of awe are inadmissible, as are all other emotions, visions of angels, etc.

Rand: Emotions are not tools of cognition.

And she was quite misguided in that declarative conclusion.

However counselor we will make it part of the record, since I smell an appeal in the air...

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'd give anything in the world for it to be otherwise, Adam.

[Selene]

I'd give anything in the world for it to be otherwise, Adam.

Understood.

[anthony]

This gets us into an interesting question. How does one -prove- that non-existence of a specified object? We know how to prove a specified object exists. We find it in the real world and point to it and say "Here it is!" Or we construct it and when we are done we say "Here it is!" Showing something exists is relatively easy. And we all share the same criterion for existence. We look, we identify and if t he object identified matches the specification of the object sought we say "Here it is".

But how do we show a specified object does not exist? It comes down to either looking at everything in the world and seeing we have no match.

You've simply proven how the empirical method has limits, Bob: dis-proving an unprovable assertion.

e.g. Validate or invalidate this proposition : "There is a fairy only I can see sitting on my shoulder".

One can have no evidence for, and none against it. All the empiricist could conclude is: "neither true nor false". We can't know - then again, we can't not know. Until then, one has to keep "looking at everything in the world" for that "match". Which is a skeptical/agnostic way to live a life.

[anthony]

The first two attributes seem fairly well discernable by science. Is there such an energy? Is it all pervasive? Apparently so.

The third, the benevolent "pleased with existence" part, seems to be where the leap is required, absent a direct experience with that Reality.

Many folks have had that "direct experience with that reality."

Some have experienced it on that beach, or, touching the human brain of a child as one operates, or, being tortured because of what they believed in, or, took that picture, hit that note, concluded an argument that frees an innocent man...the endless awe all individuals experience when they "see!"

A...

Glad to know you all

That's very nicely put. Those "direct experiences" however, required senses and a comprehending mind. That is, an identifying consciousness, independent of the object (situation, etc ). It is to your credit that YOU (your conceptual consciousness) recognize those rational values, ones which another person might not see or dismiss.

If there were no necessity for each mind to bridge the reality gap (i.e. automatic "Oneness" with reality), the same values would be apparent to all men, and an independent mind would become superfluous. No sign of that.

Being "One" with it all, is wishful thinking and a mystical dead end and cause of collectivism.

To start instead with the self-evident premise of 'Aloneness' or separateness makes free thought possible for men, individually valued and chosen acts without compromise to others' standards.

Oneness is psychologically totalitarian.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

So, yes, I choose "A" but I do not mix up "law" with "phenomenon."

ALL phenomena are governed by laws.

Einstein created his discovery.

Einstein only discovered creation.

Greg

Arguments based on asseveration are asseveration through and through and are fallacious because they are faux axiomatic.

Or--to cut to the chase--arguments that are asseverations are not arguments at all.

You are essentially going around and around in a circle powered by and chasing your glorious suppositions seduced by the fact that a few of them are right. Everyone else is an observer noting that the hands of a non-functioning clock are right twice a day. In your case the clock itself rotates, creating an illusion of functioning and the non-illusion of the ridiculous. Einstein might think of you as "relative mass," except he's 60 years dead and gone.

--Brant

your base philosophy is fine, but you reach much too far

[Selene]

asseveration - a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

[Brant Gaede]

This gets us into an interesting question. How does one -prove- that non-existence of a specified object? We know how to prove a specified object exists. We find it in the real world and point to it and say "Here it is!" Or we construct it and when we are done we say "Here it is!" Showing something exists is relatively easy. And we all share the same criterion for existence. We look, we identify and if t he object identified matches the specification of the object sought we say "Here it is".

But how do we show a specified object does not exist? It comes down to either looking at everything in the world and seeing we have no match. That is practical impossibility. An empirical demonstration of none existence is rather difficult. What is more tractable is to show the existence of the specified object leads to a logical contradiction. This is how we show that the square root of two is not the ratio of integers. If one assumes there are integers m, n such that (m/n)^2 = 2 we derive a logical contradiction

The only empirical demonstration of non-existence is to restrict the portion of the real world in which we might find the specified object. For example I can say definitely there is no $100 bill in my wallet. I get my wallet out and dump all objects therein, match each of this finite set of object to the specification for a $100 bill. Nope. None of the stuff in my wallet matches. There is no $100 dollar bill in my wallet. But to say there is no specified object X in the entire world, that is a different matter entirely. The only way to do that is with a logical proof of contradiction.

Now specify what God would be if God existed. If you can show those specification must produce a contradiction then sure enough you have proved God does not exist. There is only one problem. There is no definite specification for saying that an object is God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If everything--every object--is "God" then everything affirms God (reality). The human race grows up when reality displaces "God" and all the God nonsense that can be attributable to God but not reality--or faith is displaced by reason, as it damn well should be.

--Brant

I have faith that faith will go the way of the dinosaurs (but the birds will still be with us)

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

So, yes, I choose "A" but I do not mix up "law" with "phenomenon."

ALL phenomena are governed by laws.

The Earth is governed by the sun. That does not justify conflating the two.

--Brant

you might as well say all laws govern phenomena for you didn't say enough to support what you did say

what should be said is there are two different things with considerable over-lapping

[Selene]

This gets us into an interesting question. How does one -prove- that non-existence of a specified object? We know how to prove a specified object exists. We find it in the real world and point to it and say "Here it is!" Or we construct it and when we are done we say "Here it is!" Showing something exists is relatively easy. And we all share the same criterion for existence. We look, we identify and if t he object identified matches the specification of the object sought we say "Here it is".

But how do we show a specified object does not exist? It comes down to either looking at everything in the world and seeing we have no match. That is practical impossibility. An empirical demonstration of none existence is rather difficult. What is more tractable is to show the existence of the specified object leads to a logical contradiction. This is how we show that the square root of two is not the ratio of integers. If one assumes there are integers m, n such that (m/n)^2 = 2 we derive a logical contradiction

The only empirical demonstration of non-existence is to restrict the portion of the real world in which we might find the specified object. For example I can say definitely there is no $100 bill in my wallet. I get my wallet out and dump all objects therein, match each of this finite set of object to the specification for a $100 bill. Nope. None of the stuff in my wallet matches. There is no $100 dollar bill in my wallet. But to say there is no specified object X in the entire world, that is a different matter entirely. The only way to do that is with a logical proof of contradiction.

Now specify what God would be if God existed. If you can show those specification must produce a contradiction then sure enough you have proved God does not exist. There is only one problem. There is no definite specification for saying that an object is God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If everything--every object--is "God" then everything affirms God (reality). The human race grows up when reality displaces "God" and all the God nonsense that can be attributable to God but not reality--or faith is displaced by reason, as it damn well should be.

--Brant

I have faith that faith will go the way of the dinosaurs (but the birds will still be with us)

And if "God" is reason?

For example, Michael showed us the Rational Recovery concept...http://www.12step.com/articles/alcoholics-anonymous/rational-recovery-vs-aa

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Reason is reasoning--reason cannot stand alone except as pure abstraction.

AA is a religion. It works for whom it works. It replaces one addiction with another--itself.

I cannot grok addiction except as an indulgence if not cowardice. This may not be fair for many others, but it's true for me. I smoked for maybe 5 years and quit on my 25th birthday. I was thinking 25 years ahead. That was well over 46 years ago. While I was addicted, I suppose, I was not as addicted as some. Not once did I ever wake up in the middle of the night needing a drag. I smoked a pack a day. Once I hitched a local ride in New Jersey with a middle-aged truck driver who constantly smoked one cigarette after another constantly coughing. I knew he was soon going to die.

My addictions are minor. Cookies, coffee--that sort of thing. I was addicted to the morning newspaper. I quit reading it over a week ago. No withdrawal to speak of.

You cannot be a "man's man" or a "woman's woman" if an addiction rules your life. You might be an addict's addict if you are his also supplier.

--Brant

you CAN be a woman's man, however (heh, heh: have some Madeira M'dear)